The Trial Penalty in Florida: What Hodges v. State Teaches Us
Let me tell you about a 63-year-old veteran with no prior criminal history who ended up with a felony conviction over bees. Not drugs, not violence, not fraud. Bees.
Mark Hodges had a balcony full of them. He’s allergic. He had a bee removal worker out there taking care of the problem, and he panicked and locked the balcony door with the worker still on it. The state charged him with felony false imprisonment. If you’ve spent any time watching Dateline or true crime documentaries, your first thought was probably: yeah, this happened in Florida.
Facing a Criminal Charge and Weighing a Plea Deal?
The decision to go to trial or accept a plea is one of the most consequential choices in your case. Call John Guidry at (407) 423-1117 before you make it.
What the State Offered and Why Hodges Said No
The state gave Hodges a series of offers. First, a misdemeanor with no conviction and six months of probation. Hodges said no. Then the state came back with a withhold of adjudication — which in Florida means no felony conviction, the ability to vote, the ability to own a firearm. The catch was open sentencing before Judge Michael Rudisill of Seminole County, meaning the judge could impose whatever he wanted within legal limits, as long as he gave the withhold. Hodges said no to that too.
His reasoning was straightforward. He didn’t falsely imprison anyone. He panicked over bees he’s allergic to. He wanted a trial, and he got one. The jury convicted him.
What Happened at Sentencing — and Why It Mattered
Judge Rudisill sentenced Hodges to three years of probation. No jail time. Notably lighter than what a conviction after trial might typically look like in a case with a felony conviction as the result. However, the judge said something during sentencing that defense attorneys hear sometimes but almost never see spoken on the record. He indicated — the 5th DCA’s characterization, not a direct quote — that had Hodges pled guilty, he would have withheld adjudication, meaning no conviction. Because Hodges exercised his right to trial and the jury found him guilty, the judge gave him an adjudication of guilt instead.
The defense attorneys heard it. They appealed. The 5th DCA agreed.
The Trial Penalty in Florida: What It Is and Why It’s Real
The trial penalty refers to the difference between the sentence a defendant receives from a plea deal versus the harsher outcome that follows a conviction at trial. Defense attorneys have known about it for decades. Prosecutors know about it too. It’s one of the primary reasons roughly 97-98% of criminal cases in the United States never reach a jury.
The constitutional problem arises when a judge uses a defendant’s decision to exercise the Sixth Amendment right to trial as an explicit basis for imposing a harsher sentence. The 5th DCA in Hodges v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026) vacated the sentence and ordered resentencing before a new judge, relying in part on the earlier holding in Little v. State, 152 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), which found it fundamental error for a trial court to deny a downward departure specifically because the defendant chose to go to trial.
The jury’s verdict stands. Hodges remains convicted of false imprisonment. What the appellate court overturned was the sentence that the judge’s own statements indicated flowed from the trial decision rather than from the facts and circumstances of the offense.
The Other Side: When Trial Doesn’t Cost You More
I want to be honest about something, because the trial penalty cuts in multiple directions. I had a client in Orange County years ago — a serious case with a four-year prison offer on the table. He turned it down and went to trial. He lost. Judge Lisa Munyon sentenced him to three years. He saved a year of prison by going to trial and losing. Sometimes a judge looks at the offer, looks at the verdict, and decides the prosecution’s recommended sentence was higher than the facts deserved. It happens.
You never know exactly how a sentencing will land. That’s the risk and the reality. A trial puts everything on the table — the facts, the verdict, and the judge’s independent assessment of what justice looks like in your case. Sometimes that assessment runs in your favor even after a guilty verdict. The Hodges situation was different because the judge made his reasoning explicit, which is what turned the sentencing into a constitutional issue.
What This Means When You’re Weighing a Plea
Every case that reaches the plea-or-trial decision point deserves a real conversation about risk. What does the evidence look like? What is the realistic outcome at trial? What is the judge’s sentencing history on cases like this? What does probation look like versus a potential prison sentence? What collateral consequences follow a conviction versus a withhold of adjudication?
These aren’t questions with universal answers. Hodges’s case is a good example of both sides: he had a legitimate argument at trial, he lost, and his sentence ended up reasonable anyway — but he now has a felony conviction that a withhold would have avoided. Whether that was the right call depends entirely on what you value and what risk you can bear.
If You Want More Related Content
Check out our more videos and breakdown articles covering major updates in Florida defense law. You can also use the links below to stay informed. Learn how to protect your constitutional rights when dealing with law enforcement.
Watch: If You’re Facing a “New Judge”
Read: https://jgcrimlaw.com/articles/refusing-plea-bargain-florida/
John’s Takeaways
- The trial penalty is real in Florida. Defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial and lose often receive harsher sentences than the plea deal they turned down.
- In Hodges v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026), the appellate court vacated a sentence because the judge’s own statements indicated he imposed an adjudication of guilt specifically because Hodges went to trial — a direct constitutional problem under Little v. State, 152 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
- A judge cannot punish a defendant for exercising the Sixth Amendment right to trial. When a judge says the quiet part out loud, the appellate courts have the authority and the obligation to act.
- The reverse is also possible. Sometimes a judge sentences a convicted defendant below the plea offer, deciding the prosecution overvalued the case. The outcome is never certain going in.
- The plea-or-trial decision deserves serious analysis of the specific judge, the evidence, and the likely sentencing range. There’s no universal right answer — only a deeply personal calculus that your attorney has to help you work through honestly.
Weighing a Plea or Considering Trial? Let’s Think It Through Together.
I’ve been navigating this exact decision with clients in Central Florida since 1993, and no two situations are the same. I represent clients across Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, and Volusia County.
Give my office a call. Let’s look at your case, your judge, and your real options before you make a decision you can’t take back.
John Guidry — (407) 423-1117
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 33 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
John Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.